The staff of a conservative newspaper at Stanford, The Stanford Review, is engaging in civil disobedience in order to overturn a university rule that prevents door-to-door distribution of newspapers. The newspaper is openly violating the policy by distributing papers door-to-door from dorm to dorm, and giving its reasons for committing such a rule violation on its Web site. According to the Stanford Daily, the Stanford Review now faces “indictment” by the university and a possible appearance before the school’s Organizational Conduct Board. Possible punishment includes educational sanctions, monetary fines and removal of university recognition. “Door-to-door distribution is essential for the publications community, essential for students interested in reading our publications and consistent with the values for which both Stanford and Residential Education stand,” an un-apologetic Stanford Review Editor Emeritus Ben Guthrie said. Lindsay Reinsmith, editor of the left-leaning student publication The Progressive, told the Stanford Daily that she felt there were two sides to the issue: “Door-to-door distribution is nice in that it allows students to access publications,” she said. “They have to make literally no effect to get publications produced on campus. However, it creates a mess of paper on campus, and students don’t necessarily want their own copies of publications. You have to find a balance here between allowing students to find ready access to material without overwhelming them.” (The previous item originally contained two errors that have were corrected Jan. 31.)

SF Press Club News

One Comment

  1. This summary misrepresents the position of The Progressive, which has been allied with the Stanford Review in fighting to allow door to door distribution for campus publications.

    Here is how the Stanford Daily reported the statement of Progressive editor Lindsay Reinsmith:

    “Door-to-door distribution is nice in that it allows students to access publications,” she said. “They have to make literally no effect to get publications produced on campus. However, it creates a mess of paper on campus, and students don’t necessarily want their own copies of publications. You have to find a balance here between allowing students to find ready access to material without overwhelming them.”

    She is acknowledging that there are two sides to the issue. It is incorrect to summarize her position by only quoting one side of it: “…she felt door-to-door distribution would have a negative impact on student life by creating litter.”

    How hard is it to correctly report that she sees the issue as having two sides?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>